Emergency pulmonary resuscitation device

Abstract

An emergency pulmonary resuscitation device is described. The device of the present invention provides emergency breathing for use in techniques such as CPR, and is preferably capable of interaction with an automatic external defibrillator. The device is easy to operate and provides feedback so that it may be used by persons without medical training. The device also works through a simple action, making it possible for it to be inexpensively manufactured and widely disseminated.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION[0001]The present invention relates to devices for performing emergency pulmonary resuscitation.BACKGROUND[0002]Cardiovascular diseases and sudden cardiac arrest are a leading cause of death in North America. It is estimated by the American Heart Association that approximately 325,000 Americans die every year in cardiac events before they reach a hospital.[0003]The technique of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was developed to allow for medical personnel and bystanders to treat persons suffering from sudden cardiac arrest. Standard CPR techniques require the delivery of both emergency breaths and chest compressions to the unconscious patient.[0004]Original techniques for rescue breathing involve the use of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. While mouth-to-mouth is a commonly known procedure for rescue breathing, it has several drawbacks. First, it requires the mouth of the person performing the procedure to come in direct physical contact with the mouth of the p...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

The EPRD enables efficient, accurate, and reproducible emergency breathing with minimal user effort, reducing the risk of incorrect breath sizes and fatigue, while being easily manufacturable and maintainable for widespread dissemination, including public spaces and homes.

Problems solved by technology

Cardiovascular diseases and sudden cardiac arrest are a leading cause of death in North America.

First, it requires the mouth of the person performing the procedure to come in direct physical contact with the mouth of the patient, which can cause the spread of disease.

Second, it requires strenuous physical effort on behalf of the rescuer, especially when coupled with chest compressions, making it difficult to perform effectively for extended periods of time.

Third, it is difficult, even for experienced medical personnel, to deliver consistent breaths using mouth-to-mouth, which may have deleterious consequences for the patient.

However, many of these devices are not 100% effective in preventing disease transmission, may interfere with the delivery of a rescue breaths and do not overcome the farther disadvantages of mouth-to-mouth listed above.

First, although they may be less tiring than mouth-to-mouth techniques, constant squeezing of the bag requires substantial effort, and the person delivering emergency breathing can still quickly become fatigued.

Second, as each person squeezes the bag in a different manner and as it is impossible for even an advanced user to make each squeeze identical, bag systems cannot be used to deliver consistent emergency breathing.

As such, dangerously small or large breaths may be delivered, both of which may put the patient's life at risk.

Further, inconsistent delivery of breaths over an extended period may cause damage to the patient's airway.

Also, the systems known in the art may not be portable, may have complicated control systems or may not provide the type of feedback that allows for their use by a member of the general public.

Many of the ventilator / resuscitator systems known in the art are also very complicated to manufacture and use, making their widespread dissemination impractical.

Further, as many of these devices function primarily as ventilators, their use is highly regulated and restricted in most countries around the world, making it nearly impossible for them to be available to the general public.

However, the complexity of the device, its lack of feedback for the user and its primary function as a ventilator make its widespread use by the general public impracticable.

However, the device offers no feedback to user to allow for tightly controlled delivery of emergency breaths, especially during CPR.

Because of the complexities of the Laswick device, and further because its mechanism of action is likely to cause it to be classified as a ventilator, the device is not suitable to widespread dissemination for use by members of the general public.

Images